There have been recent calls for the Parliament to vote to remove two Members from the House.
In Australia, the power to make and manage federal law is divided between three groups: the Parliament, the Executive and the Judiciary. This division is known as “separation of powers” and is an important principle in Australia’s system of governance.
Very simply, the Australian Parliament makes and amends the law – The Executive (or the Government) puts the law into action and the Judiciary (the High Court and other Federal Courts) makes judgement about the law.
History has shown that checks on the use of power such as this, are important for preventing misuse of power. Separation of powers avoids a monopoly of power by any one group. Each group works within its area of responsibility and also keeps a check on the actions of the other groups.
If we deviate from this principle then where does that leave us as a nation?
Those who would seek to remove Craig Thomson and Peter Slipper from the Parliament by way of a vote of the House of Representatives should reflect on this principle as if they were the accused.
My Colleague, Bob Katter, the MP for Kennedy sums it up well saying he was “really sensitive to kangaroo courts, and the Parliament of Australia would be the worst possible kangaroo court known to man”.
And further he says “Let every person in Australia think of this; it’s him (Thomson) today, it could be you tomorrow”.
Neither Mr Thomson nor Mr Slipper has been charged with having committed an illegal act, let alone having faced the Court and being found guilty of any offence.
Whilst there may be means of censuring MPs on conduct issues, the calls for the Parliament to act and throw out a duly elected member is asking the Parliament to become the Judiciary in our system of governance.
In other words, the Parliament is being asked to be the Judge, Jury and Executioner and that is not its role.
Historically, the House of Representatives has “censured” a private (individual) Member on three occasions and “condemned” a private Member once.
In 1977, the House censured the Member for Oxley, Bill Hayden, for making “economically subversive public statements” about the Australian dollar and the economy; and in 1993 the House censured the Member for Barker (Ian McLachlan) for misleading the House.
The former Member for New England, the Rt Hon Ian Sinclair, was also censured in 1984 for conduct unworthy of a Member in that he made serious allegations against two citizens which were subsequently found to be false.
The Member for Chisholm (Michael Wooldridge) was condemned for intentionally misleading the House during a personal explanation in 1995.
From my investigations into the course of action the House can take, it appears that, while the House has the power to censure a private member, such motions would usually be directed at a Minister relating to their responsibility to the House and it is not technically possible under Commonwealth Law to sack an MP by a vote of the House.
All Members know this but, if they succeed in becoming the Executioner, then I fear for our system of governance, and therefore Government, in Australia.
Whilst the Fairwork Australia report into the HSU, in Mr Thomson’s case is damning, he still has a right to his day in Court if charges are indeed laid against him.
My role in the Parliament and that of the other Members — even those calling for the ejection of Mr Thomson and Mr Slipper from the Parliament – is to make and amend laws.
I don’t know whether the allegations are true or not but it is not my role to make that judgement. I will accept the decision of the court and the consequences of the court’s decision.
What I do know is that every Australian has rights that include a presumption of innocence until PROVEN guilty.
Opinion: Tony Windsor
MP for New England
